The Great War

[Chewie1]

I don't really want to keep going on about this, but if you're going to use research done by other people, acknowledging their work isn't really all that difficult, or onerous. Passing it off as your own work when people are paying for it? That seems a bit wrong to me.

Rather than talk in generalities, please point to a specific example of something that you feel was passed off as someone's own work.

I simply think that the historians who did the groundwork deserve a bit of credit. Are you really asking me to do your work for you?

Does it really matter.


Jeez to much criticism in a lot of the topic forums.

Well done for Duk for running the thread.

I appreciate it and read the history threads.... whether the correct author is congratulated or not its still a good read.

[mookiemcgee]

I don't really want to keep going on about this, but if you're going to use research done by other people, acknowledging their work isn't really all that difficult, or onerous. Passing it off as your own work when people are paying for it? That seems a bit wrong to me.

Rather than talk in generalities, please point to a specific example of something that you feel was passed off as someone's own work.

I simply think that the historians who did the groundwork deserve a bit of credit. Are you really asking me to do your work for you?

Does it really matter.


Jeez to much criticism in a lot of the topic forums.

Well done for Duk for running the thread.

I appreciate it and read the history threads.... whether the correct author is congratulated or not its still a good read.

Chewie, Symmetry is a well known troll. He doesn't play the game on CC at all and just pops into the forum from time to time to try and start controversy and berate the mods just for kicks. If you search his game history you'll see he's played 2 games in 2016 and has never participated in any these great war tourneys. He's only here to do what trolls do, which is stir up trouble and sit back and revel in the chaos that ensues. you'll notice 90% of his posts just flip someones argument and ends with his own question as he did in the post you quoted. A clever manipulative trick to be sure, it furthers his end of continuing the argument/criticism so that we spent more time posting back which is all he really wants out of the situation. Why the site continues to allow people to sow the seeds of its own destruction is something I often wonder about, but it appears Symm is a permanent fixture. I'd advise you to do what others have explained I should take more care in doing... 'don't feed the trolls'.

Again to Duku, I appreciate greatly the work you've put into these tourneys and the brief reads on the battles those of us playing are fighting in!

[Dukasaur]

Thanks guys!

[Symmetry]

I don't really want to keep going on about this, but if you're going to use research done by other people, acknowledging their work isn't really all that difficult, or onerous. Passing it off as your own work when people are paying for it? That seems a bit wrong to me.

Rather than talk in generalities, please point to a specific example of something that you feel was passed off as someone's own work.

I simply think that the historians who did the groundwork deserve a bit of credit. Are you really asking me to do your work for you?

Does it really matter.


Jeez to much criticism in a lot of the topic forums.

Well done for Duk for running the thread.

I appreciate it and read the history threads.... whether the correct author is congratulated or not its still a good read.

It's a good read because other people did the work of trawling through archival documents, recording information, and interviewing people involved. It may not matter to some, but if a for-profit site uses someone else's work, I think they deserve a bit of credit.

I appreciate that it might seem like pedantry, or even trolling, but I see it as a basic form of respect. If you're going to use someone else's work, just say so. Acknowledge them and move on. I don't think that it's a massively difficult thing.

[Dukasaur]

I don't really want to keep going on about this, but if you're going to use research done by other people, acknowledging their work isn't really all that difficult, or onerous. Passing it off as your own work when people are paying for it? That seems a bit wrong to me.

Rather than talk in generalities, please point to a specific example of something that you feel was passed off as someone's own work.

I simply think that the historians who did the groundwork deserve a bit of credit. Are you really asking me to do your work for you?

Yeah, absolutely. If you want to undertake to vet the tourneys for any incorrectly attributed statements, go ahead. There's always more work that needs doing than there are volunteers to do it, so any help is appreciated.

[Symmetry]

I don't really want to keep going on about this, but if you're going to use research done by other people, acknowledging their work isn't really all that difficult, or onerous. Passing it off as your own work when people are paying for it? That seems a bit wrong to me.

Rather than talk in generalities, please point to a specific example of something that you feel was passed off as someone's own work.

I simply think that the historians who did the groundwork deserve a bit of credit. Are you really asking me to do your work for you?

Yeah, absolutely. If you want to undertake to vet the tourneys for any incorrectly attributed statements, go ahead. There's always more work that needs doing than there are volunteers to do it, so any help is appreciated.

It's not, as you put it, "innacurately attributed statements" that are at issue, though is it, Duk?

You just should give credit where credit's due.

[Dukasaur]

I don't really want to keep going on about this, but if you're going to use research done by other people, acknowledging their work isn't really all that difficult, or onerous. Passing it off as your own work when people are paying for it? That seems a bit wrong to me.

Rather than talk in generalities, please point to a specific example of something that you feel was passed off as someone's own work.

I simply think that the historians who did the groundwork deserve a bit of credit. Are you really asking me to do your work for you?

Yeah, absolutely. If you want to undertake to vet the tourneys for any incorrectly attributed statements, go ahead. There's always more work that needs doing than there are volunteers to do it, so any help is appreciated.

It's not, as you put it, "innacurately attributed statements" that are at issue, though is it, Duk?

You just should give credit where credit's due.

I don't know. Your allegations are mind-numbingly vague. You're alleging some kind of plagiarism but you haven't yet pointed to a single plagiarized paragraph.

[Symmetry]

I don't really want to keep going on about this, but if you're going to use research done by other people, acknowledging their work isn't really all that difficult, or onerous. Passing it off as your own work when people are paying for it? That seems a bit wrong to me.

Rather than talk in generalities, please point to a specific example of something that you feel was passed off as someone's own work.

I simply think that the historians who did the groundwork deserve a bit of credit. Are you really asking me to do your work for you?

Yeah, absolutely. If you want to undertake to vet the tourneys for any incorrectly attributed statements, go ahead. There's always more work that needs doing than there are volunteers to do it, so any help is appreciated.

It's not, as you put it, "innacurately attributed statements" that are at issue, though is it, Duk?

You just should give credit where credit's due.

I don't know. Your allegations are mind-numbingly vague. You're alleging plagiarism but you haven't yet pointed to a single plagiarized paragraph.

This "Um, I dunno" schtick is fine as far as it goes, but let's cut this to the chase. Are you willing to properly acknowledge the work of historians, or are you going to keep accepting praise for prose based on the work of others?

[Dukasaur]

This "Um, I dunno" schtick is fine as far as it goes, but let's cut this to the chase. Are you willing to properly acknowledge the work of historians, or are you going to keep accepting praise for prose based on the work of others?

Oh, so that's what you're on about. You don't like the fact that people praise the quality of my writing. You should have said so from the beginning, instead of going on this pretense about plagiarism.

All the tourneys that have my initials at the bottom are written by me, and any praise they have received is deserved by me.

Where stuff is quoted from wikipedia or world war one dot org, it is properly credited and linked to those sources. In some cases they themselves are using first-hand sources, which in turn are properly credited on their websites. The end.

[mookiemcgee]

This "Um, I dunno" schtick is fine as far as it goes, but let's cut this to the chase. Are you willing to properly acknowledge the work of historians, or are you going to keep accepting praise for prose based on the work of others?

Oh, so that's what you're on about. You don't like the fact that people praise the quality of my writing. You should have said so from the beginning, instead of going on this pretense about plagiarism.

All the tourneys that have my initials at the bottom are written by me, and any praise they have received is deserved by me.

Where stuff is quoted from wikipedia or world war one dot org, it is properly credited and linked to those sources. In some cases they themselves are using first-hand sources, which in turn are properly credited on their websites. The end.

[Silly Knig-it]

Maybe its time for a Symmetry tournament. Let's see, the creative component could be something like, oh, maybe, make up symmetrical and opposing statements about people like say, Symmetry. The truth would not matter as long as the two statements cancel because then one would be effectively saying nothing. So no harm no foul.

Or maybe they could be questions like, "Have you stopped beating your mother on Saturday mornings, Symmetry?"

If one doesn't play, doesn't participate, then why do we care what you think, (assuming of course that you do). I am trying to be generous here but I think its time for one of those are you a robot tests to be applied. Is Symmetry a real human being?

Inquiring minds want to know?

Actually, no they don't.

[ConfederateSS]

-------- --------------------
--------I will have to defend THE BOTS though...Bots actually play games...I can now see a tear sliding down a Bot's face(like the old commercial about littering with a crying Indian/Native American)...Poor Bots being used in the same sentence as my lobster-back sad shadow... ...But the thought of a tourney where nobody plays...Is still funny as hell... Silly...nice... ... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[emelar]

I don't really want to keep going on about this, but if you're going to use research done by other people, acknowledging their work isn't really all that difficult, or onerous. Passing it off as your own work when people are paying for it? That seems a bit wrong to me.

Rather than talk in generalities, please point to a specific example of something that you feel was passed off as someone's own work.

I simply think that the historians who did the groundwork deserve a bit of credit. Are you really asking me to do your work for you?

Yeah, absolutely. If you want to undertake to vet the tourneys for any incorrectly attributed statements, go ahead. There's always more work that needs doing than there are volunteers to do it, so any help is appreciated.

It's not, as you put it, "innacurately attributed statements" that are at issue, though is it, Duk?

You just should give credit where credit's due.

I don't know. Your allegations are mind-numbingly vague. You're alleging plagiarism but you haven't yet pointed to a single plagiarized paragraph.

This "Um, I dunno" schtick is fine as far as it goes, but let's cut this to the chase. Are you willing to properly acknowledge the work of historians, or are you going to keep accepting praise for prose based on the work of others?..........<---------------------

That is a disingenuous and gratuitious criticism. Duk is not asking you to do his work. He is asking you to justify your inane criticism. Duk already answered your question. He is not going to acknowledge according to your personally, hypocritically, self-appointed criteria for appropriateness, the work of historians. The praise he seeks is clearly not for correcting history but for all the work he does in service of the game-site. Dukasaur, you ARE praiseworthy. Your detractor, Troll number 1, is not. - Just a troll dissing a troll, but deservedly, Troll number 1.

[Symmetry]

This "Um, I dunno" schtick is fine as far as it goes, but let's cut this to the chase. Are you willing to properly acknowledge the work of historians, or are you going to keep accepting praise for prose based on the work of others?

Oh, so that's what you're on about. You don't like the fact that people praise the quality of my writing. You should have said so from the beginning, instead of going on this pretense about plagiarism.

All the tourneys that have my initials at the bottom are written by me, and any praise they have received is deserved by me.

Where stuff is quoted from wikipedia or world war one dot org, it is properly credited and linked to those sources. In some cases they themselves are using first-hand sources, which in turn are properly credited on their websites. The end.

I don't really see the point of baiting and flaming with this, though you seem to enjoy the results. If you feel that your work here has properly credited all the work of others, and you haven't just lazily taken their research and then said that it's all yours because your initials are at the bottom, fine.

Are you really willing to leave it at that this time?

[ender516]

This "Um, I dunno" schtick is fine as far as it goes, but let's cut this to the chase. Are you willing to properly acknowledge the work of historians, or are you going to keep accepting praise for prose based on the work of others?

Oh, so that's what you're on about. You don't like the fact that people praise the quality of my writing. You should have said so from the beginning, instead of going on this pretense about plagiarism.

All the tourneys that have my initials at the bottom are written by me, and any praise they have received is deserved by me.

Where stuff is quoted from wikipedia or world war one dot org, it is properly credited and linked to those sources. In some cases they themselves are using first-hand sources, which in turn are properly credited on their websites. The end.

I don't really see the point of baiting and flaming with this, though you seem to enjoy the results. If you feel that your work here has properly credited all the work of others, and you haven't just lazily taken their research and then said that it's all yours because your initials are at the bottom, fine.

Are you really willing to leave it at that this time?

I'd say that question has been asked and answered. I am all for proper credit, so if you think something here has been misappropriated, point it out specifically and give a reference to what you feel is the real source. Be a mensch. If you cannot be specific, then this coy "are you sure?" stuff is getting old. Enough windup, it's time to pitch. Otherwise, that's a balk, head for the bullpen. (God, look at me, using baseball metaphors.)

[actorday]

in plz

[actorday]

disregard previous message,lol

[Tyler0]

Hello,,....?

[Dukasaur]

Hello,,....?

Hi!

[notyou2]

Sup?

[Symmetry]

This "Um, I dunno" schtick is fine as far as it goes, but let's cut this to the chase. Are you willing to properly acknowledge the work of historians, or are you going to keep accepting praise for prose based on the work of others?

Oh, so that's what you're on about. You don't like the fact that people praise the quality of my writing. You should have said so from the beginning, instead of going on this pretense about plagiarism.

All the tourneys that have my initials at the bottom are written by me, and any praise they have received is deserved by me.

Where stuff is quoted from wikipedia or world war one dot org, it is properly credited and linked to those sources. In some cases they themselves are using first-hand sources, which in turn are properly credited on their websites. The end.

I don't really see the point of baiting and flaming with this, though you seem to enjoy the results. If you feel that your work here has properly credited all the work of others, and you haven't just lazily taken their research and then said that it's all yours because your initials are at the bottom, fine.

Are you really willing to leave it at that this time?

I'd say that question has been asked and answered. I am all for proper credit, so if you think something here has been misappropriated, point it out specifically and give a reference to what you feel is the real source. Be a mensch. If you cannot be specific, then this coy "are you sure?" stuff is getting old. Enough windup, it's time to pitch. Otherwise, that's a balk, head for the bullpen. (God, look at me, using baseball metaphors.)

Baseball might reward running round in circles (or diamonds, if you're being precious), but I think I've made my point but I'm on the losing side of this argument. Asking for historians to be recognised for their work was always going to be a tough sell

As you point out, the burden is on the person who did the research, or the person who asks for the research to be acknowledged.

Personally, I see that as unfair, but others who pay for that work applied elsewhere will see otherwise.

[notyou2]

Symmetry, go play in traffic.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry, go play in traffic.

Did you make that up yourself?

[Chewie1]

Symmetry, go play in traffic.

Did you make that up yourself?

No his mum used to tell him but he didnt listen.